You Asked, They Answered: Q&A With Selectmen Candidates

Special Town Election for the expanded Board of Selectmen is less than two weeks away.

The five candidates vying to fill two seats — Chuck Woodard, Dan DePompei, Len Simon, Eric Poch and Thaddeus Gozdeck — agreed to answer four questions submitted by Sudbury residents to Sudbury Patch, with Sudbury Patch choosing the questions.

DePompei and Simon are running for the available three-year seat, while  Gozdeck, Poch, and Woodard are competing for the two-year term.

The election is June 25.

The deadline to submit answers was June 11 at noon. Poch did not submit his answers by the deadline.

Below are the answers to the four questions from the other candidates:

1. How do you feel about consolidation of school systems?

Chuck Woodard: Consolidation of the Sudbury, Lincoln, and Lincoln Sudbury Regional High Schools into one unified K-12 system would be very beneficial educationally and result in a meaningful reduction in duplicate overhead and therefore costs.  With one superintendent overseeing the entire system, decisions about the allocation of resources between K-8 and the high school would be based upon what is best for the overall education of the students as they move through a combined K-12 system.  This very important resource allocation decision would not be determined by political decisions regarding how much of the overall budget each of the three competing cost centers (Lincoln K-8, Sudbury K-8, and the regional high school) will receive, as is now the case.  By combining the three school systems we can reduce three superintendents to one, three school committees to one, three finance directors to one, and three back office staffs to something considerably less than we have now.  Make no mistake, however- this would be a long and complex process.  It would require the approvals of the Town Meetings of both Sudbury and Lincoln, the possible consolidation of three labor contracts into one, and the negotiation of the terms of a new and expanded regional agreement with Lincoln.  As a first step the Board of Selectmen should initiate a dialogue with Lincoln about the future of education in both towns so that we might establish common ground and shared objectives that might be the basis for moving forward. 

Leonard Simon: Very simple question.  Very complex issue.  No simple answer.

By consolidation I assume you mean consolidation of K-12 in Sudbury. 

Regionalization would mean bringing Lincoln, Sudbury, and LS together.  Regionalization could be better educationally, but we would need to study the financial impact.

The underlying goal giving rise to your question must be addressed first.  That is, what do we want to achieve by consolidation of school systems?  Once the premises question is clear, an evidence-based analysis of consolidation can be done, though it will likely be long and complicated.  As a selectman, I would have to take into account the many facets of our current system that would have to be changed to accomplish consolidation. 

The current system has been in place for about 50 years.  I would call upon residents to explain the particulars of just how our current system is failing before exploring consolidation.  At this moment, I do not know if the current system is truly broken, or if there are simply islands of discontent.  When there is proof of a broken system, I, as one of five selectmen, would need to find a way to fix it.  The question, in a vacuum though, cannot be answered.  Undertaking a quest to fix something, when you are not certain what is wrong is, can be foolhardy.  Then, the potential for harm is great, and the subsequent fix would be long, hard, and expensive.

The Board of Selectmen is but one of three boards, along with SPS and L-S that would have to wrestle with this issue.  Two questions have to be asked initially:  Why would it be in Sudbury’s best interests to adopt consolidation?  If you are considering, regionalization, why would it be in Lincoln’s best interests to adopt regionalization?

I would be open to consideration of any well-founded and thought-through plan.

Dan DePompei: I believe Sudbury has several opportunities to enable reductions in the overhead

costs of our schools and create a budget reserve (basis 2014 appropriations) that could be used to fund technology, rationalization of teacher salaries, and other underfunded line items on the school budgets. Consolidation is one of these opportunities.  There are many different ways to consolidate and I am not recommending any particular way but I would vote to create a task force (similar to the Budget review Task Force 2007-2009) and report the opportunities and risks of consolidation for taxpayer review. 

Please see my blog below which I will also separately post on the Patch and should appear in the Crier this week:

“Sudbury’s Schools and a Sustainable Financial Strategy”

Sudbury’s largest and finest asset is its’ schools. Taxpayers understand the importance of investing in and constantly improving the schools. As managers of this investment, we have a responsibility to provide Sudbury’s taxpayers with a “best practices” financial strategy designed to sustain and improve our asset base. 

 All of Sudbury’s taxpayers need to be included in this financial strategy. They deserve total transparency into our operations to understand the affect of current agreements and processes on our financial sustainability. Nothing happens in isolation. We may, on occasion, be successful in reallocating a line item appropriation at Town Meeting.  We may even pass a capitol exclusion or an over ride at Town Meeting, but Town Meeting is typically less than 2% of registered voters and does not accurately represent what will happen at the ballot.  The 20% of taxpayers that turn out for a ballot vote understand many of the financial inefficiencies in our management: 1) two completely different administrative systems to support two school systems, 2) a funding model for Lincoln Sudbury that is long outdated and unfair to Sudbury taxpayers, 3) a Lincoln Sudbury school committee that is dominated by the minority stockholder, 4) Special Education funding that does not follow the student, 5) major capitol expenditures that seem to “pop up” at town meeting without having been fully vetted through our capitol improvement process, 6) Passive planning  to manage undesirable 40B development rather than active planning to reduce or eliminate undesirable 40B.

We need to view our inefficiencies as opportunities.  We need to accept full accountability and discuss the issues, good and bad, with total transparency.  If we do not confront, prioritize and correct our inefficiencies through actionable plans; if we do not create a sustainable financial strategy; our inefficiencies will once again lead us to a constant stream of override requests.  Sudbury, we can do better. 

Thaddeus Gozdeck: Consolidation of our School Administrations would be an important step toward achieving long-term academic excellence, and restoring the confidence of our voters and taxpayers. If we were to consolidate the Administrations, L-S could have a dedicated HeadMaster who could focus on the school: the teachers, the students and the parents. A K-12 Superintendent would enable the funding to follow the students, instead of staying in the budget centers for which it’s initially appropriated. All too often it seems L-S and SPS are playing a shell game for budget dollars, concealing appropriated but unspent funds in a tangle of independent costs centers and sub-cost centers. It would also help us overcome the practical challenge of an L-S Superintendent/Principal position that is very difficult for one person to handle. We have had people in that role who were great Principals (Headmaster) and others who were great Superintendents. We now know from experience it is difficult to be a School Principal and a District Superintendent at the same time. L-S deserves a full-time Headmaster to focus on the school and a full-time Superintendent to plan for long-term sustainable excellence.

Continuity of education, student transition, and curriculum planning are just some of the additional educational benefits which would result from a K-12 system. The synergies and budget oversight would allow the investment of more money in the classroom and improve our ability to manage year to year fluctuations in spending and funding. Since the vast majority of the Commonwealth and nation utilize a K-12 Administrative model (including Concord-Carlisle, Acton-Boxborough, Dover-Sherborn and Northborough-Southborough…) it would be hard to imagine that it would not be successful here.  Hiring for a K-12 Superintendent for the first time since the 1960's would also open up a broad new market of high-caliber candidates to whom we have not had access in recent searches for the K-8 and 9-12 partial districts for which we currently hire.  Although some may argue that this needs to be studied forever like the rail trail, I see many educational benefits in this widely used K-12 model which also achieves economies of scale to allow for more investment in sustainable excellence.  This is a winner. 

2. With the large number of multi-unit 40b developments concentrated within 1/2 mile of Landham and Route 20, what would you do to further limit dense housing developments in this neighborhood and repeats in others so as to adhere to the town's Master Plan that states that the goals of the Master Plan should not put an undue hardship on any one neighborhood?

CW: The 40B law with regard to affordable housing has been difficult for many and in particular for the abutters.  Unfortunately we do not have a simple yes or no answer to 40B.  It is State law.  Fortunately, on the other hand, our Town is one of only four in Massachusetts to have a State approved Housing Production Plan and, as a result of that plan and 40B developments approved over the last two years, there is a moratorium on new 40B developments until July 2014.  State law does limit the density of 40B developments but we have not yet reached that threshold in the Landham/Route 20 area (or anywhere else in town).  Until we reach the mandated goal of 10% of our housing units being affordable a developer can bypass Sudbury zoning laws.  Much as we would prefer otherwise, we cannot control which properties come on the market or when.  On the other hand, because of the risks associated with bypassing the Town zoning board and going to the State under the 40B law, it is in a developer’s interest to work with the Zoning Board of Appeals (the permitting authority) to negotiate changes to their proposal that mitigate the impact on the community.  While the BOS does not have authority over this process it can provide important input.  In addition, ZBA members are appointed by the BOS who when considering new members should look at both professional qualifications and a willingness to proactively use the ZBA’s gatekeeper function to mitigate the impact of each proposal.  In the meantime we need to continue moving forward with our efforts to increase the affordable housing stock with input from the community.

LS: This is a difficult question because the solution must take into account state law, neighborhood concerns, and the financial incentives of developers.

40B mandates Sudbury make progress toward the goal of 10% affordable housing in town.  We are at about 5.6% now,

There are two things a selectman can do to try to limit dense housing developments.  First, appoint individuals to the zoning board who can work cooperatively with developers and local residents to control the 40B development.  Second, if a parcel becomes available at a location distant from Landham/Rt. 20, the town could try to purchase that parcel and control its development.

Sudbury Housing Trust is helping to geographically distribute affordable housing, and I applaud those efforts.  However, that alone will not get us to the target of 10%. 

As a selectman, I would examine carefully all available options and search for new avenues to achieve the goal of the Master Plan, as long as it still our policy.

DD: 40B is the law and every town’s obligation.  The question is:  do we want to continue exposure to hostile 40B development or do we want to create our own high density 40B development and then manage future 40B requirements primarily through inclusionary zoning?  I believe we should seriously consider focusing on rental units or group homes (where each bed counts toward SHI). This is a perfect topic for a public forum and is a potential solution to the question asked above. The Hiousing Production Plan may also provide a potential solution to the question above but without significant risk.  Please read my complete blog below which will also be posted on Patch and sent to Crier the week of June 20, 2013:

“40B and the Sudbury Housing Production Plan”

Sudbury has a certified Housing Production Plan.  What does that mean?  From a simplified risk analysis standpoint it means Sudbury must add 28 units on the state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) every year to prevent the possibility of another aggressive development, such as Johnson Farm, under the Massachusetts 40B law.  Under 40B, Sudbury must list 10% of all housing on the state’s SHI or remain vulnerable to hostile 40B development. Sudbury counted 5,921 total units of housing in 2010.  To reach the 10% goal we needed to list 592 units.  As of 2010, Sudbury had 281 units listed on the SHI.  We were 311 units short.

The rental developments at Johnson Farm (56 units) and The Coolidge at Sudbury (64 units) have qualified Sudbury under a 40B “Safe Harbor” until ~AUG2014.  25% of these rental units are “affordable”, but all 120 of these units count against our 40B 10%.  However, we still need  ~191 additional units on the SHI at a minimum of 28/year to maintain the safe harbor until we reach the state mandated 10% of our current housing inventory. 

In contrast, a home-ownership 40B development contains 25% SHI units; the remaining 75% is market rate.  For each 4 units built, only one goes on the SHI.

The Housing Production Plan adds 257 SHI units by 2016. (It states 321 units, but Johnson Farm is now 56 units, not 120.)  For home-ownership, developers can build 1,028  new housing units, 257 (25%) on the SHI, before reaching Sudbury’s 10% goal. These housing units increase our total inventory by 1,028 requiring 103 SHI units for this development alone.  To get these 103 SHI units requires an additional 412 units of 40B home-ownership construction. 

Sudbury’s total housing inventory is recalculated only at the federal census, not when houses are built. We become responsible for our 10% of new development only in 2020. 

40B is the law and every town’s obligation.  The question is:  do we want to continue exposed to hostile 40B development or do we want to create our own high density 40B development and then manage future 40B requirements primarily through inclusionary zoning?  I believe we should seriously consider focusing on rental units or group homes (where each bed counts toward SHI). This is a perfect topic for a public forum. Sudbury we can do better.

TG: We need to do a better job of planning. We could have prevented the Landham Crossing development since Sudbury paid for the right-of-first-refusal on that property. That was the only 40B property which Sudbury had control over and we acquiesced to a high-density family 40B which does very little to help us achieve our goal of 10%. All the other 40Bs being planned for this section of town we cannot prevent.  There are 5 new 40B developments for this congested section of town representing 261 units of housing.  Quite Frankly, this is bad planning.

The only guaranteed way to prevent a 40B is to achieve 10% and adopt inclusionary zoning. We have had decades to do that and been somehow unable to make it happen. This is a real issue, rapidly changing the face of Sudbury.  40B impacts our residents, our neighborhoods, our roads, our schools, and our tax burden; and it makes it harder and harder for Sudbury to achieve long-term sustainable excellence in education and town services. Instead of a paper tiger plan which is not being followed, we need to take action and take back control of how-and-where housing is built in Sudbury.  The issue here is not affordable housing, it’s all the market-rate housing being built in Sudbury under the loophole of affordable housing.  It’s time to solve the problem.  We need to focus on affordable housing, get to 10% and prevent builders and their lobbyists from using the 40B loophole to build market-rate housing under the veil of affordable housing.

3. Do you favor automatic renewal, or giving 1-year notice and allowing the Town Manager to submit an application along side other interested parties?

CW: I think the question could also be framed as: would I be willing to consider hiring someone new to replace the Town Manager?  If I think the effectiveness and efficiency of government under the current Town Manager is excellent I see no upside and definite potential downside to replacing “what works well”.

Regarding effectiveness, in my experience, and I think most would agree, the Police, Fire, DPW, Library, and the other Town Departments all work very well.  As a citizen I am very happy with the services they provide.  In addition I would note the following milestones when assessing the effectiveness of our current government:

a) As noted in the answer to question # 2 above, our Town is one of only four in Massachusetts to have a State approved Housing Production Plan and, as a result of that plan and 40B developments approved over the last two years, there is a moratorium on new 40B developments until July 2014.

b) We maintained our AAA rating through the bottom of the Great Recession.

c) Sudbury was recently awarded the Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada. 

Regarding efficiency, if you compare the cost of our government excluding education (which does not come under the purview of the Town Manager) with neighboring towns Action, Concord, Lincoln, Maynard, and Wayland on a per capita basis, Sudbury is lower than the average and lower than all of them except Acton. 

So we are getting very good service at a lower cost than most of our peers.  Which is good value.  I see no reason to take the chance with a new Town Manager and would therefore favor automatic renewal of the contract. 

LS: I favor neither. This is where evidence-based decision making is essential.

As selectman, I would first do a job performance evaluation of the current town manager.  I would use it to measure how well Sudbury has done in an absolute sense, and a comparative sense, that is compared with other similar towns.  Then, I would want to know how well the town manager works with staff, and if tasks are being completed in a timely manner.  I would look at the quality of reports, thoroughness, and completeness.  I would want to know if the town manager promptly notifies each board and committee of issues on the horizon, and what steps are being taken to prepare for them.  I would want to know if we have applied for and received grants where available.  Then I would want to know if our long-term plan is up to date or needs revision.

If the job has been done well, by both subjective and objective standards, looking back and looking ahead, I think requiring re-application is unnecessary and diversionary.  There is a vast difference between job performance and agreement with policy, and when making important personnel decisions.  Only after the evidence has been carefully compiled, analyzed, and evaluated, should a decision regarding contract extension be considered.  To me, this is the fair way to deal with key people. 

Finally, a town is not a corporation.  A corporation exists to make money for shareholders.  A town should be judged by the quality of life of its residents.  Good financial management is certainly important, but it is only one of several tools that must work together to ensure a healthy, vibrant community.

DD: I believe competition is an enabler for continuous improvement. 

I favor giving 1-year notice and allowing the Town Manager to compete with other interested parties.  In fact, I believe in competing all town contracts and I believe the competition process, specifically for Town Manager and Town Counsel, should be defined in a town bylaw and not left to the Selectmens’ discretion.  Please read my complete blog below which was also posted to the Patch on June 5, 2013:

“Tell Everyone What the Rules Are”

This past January I was preparing petitions to propose warrant articles for Town Meeting.  One of my proposed articles was a new by-law to establish a process for the hiring of town employees.  I was using the existing Town Bylaw VII, Legal Services, as a “straw-man”.  Town Bylaw VII defines a process for hiring Town Counsel.   The original question I had was “If we have a bylaw for hiring Town Counsel, why don’t we have a bylaw for hiring other Town employees”?  Much discussion ensued and other residents began to question “why haven’t the selectmen competed the contract for Town Counsel in accordance with Town Bylaw VII”?  In response to this questioning the Town hired outside counsel to advise what Town By-Law VII really required.  Outside counsel advised “Town Bylaw VII is in conflict with our Town Manager Charter of 1994 and the Charter is the exclusive word; even if it conflicts with a previously passed statute”.  I find this very confusing.  In every other “incorporated organization” in which I have participated, Charters do not define process.  They define privilege and purpose for the authority created in the charter.  Bylaws are the vehicle for defining internal affairs and process.  Basically, our Charter assigns the responsibility for hiring the Town Counsel, the Town Manager and a Town Account to the Selectmen but we have no defined process to hire, compete and/or reappoint qualified applicants for these positions.  The process is totally at the discretion of the Selectmen.  Are there other conflicts between our by-laws and our Charter?  Do our bylaws really describe the processes we use?   Perhaps it would be appropriate to immediately review our bylaws, certify our actual practices are in accordance with our bylaws and our bylaws do not conflict with our Charter.  Interested taxpayers would like to know what the rules are.  Sudbury, we can do better. 

TG: All town contracts and all town contracted employees should be sent out for bid at the end of each contract term to ensure the people of Sudbury are getting the best service the market can provide.

4. Sudbury residents have overwhelmingly voted in support of the creation of the Bruce Freeman rail trail. How will you move it forward?

CW: First, I would accept the $50,000 offer from the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail to pay for the preliminary 25% design (to MassDOT standards) of the 0.5-mile northernmost section. Second, I would support raising the estimated cost of $350,000 to pay for the preliminary 25% design (to MassDOT standards) for the balance of the trail through town, probably through a one-time debt exclusion.  I think this may be too controversial a project to involve our CPA fund, which is a critical piece of our open space funding and which has a broad base of support.  I would not want to use CPA funds for the rail trail unless I was convinced that it would not harm the strong support the CPA has in Town. The people who are against the rail trail are against it vehemently.  I would rather go directly to the voters for the design funds, just as we are doing with the police station.  If the voters overwhelmingly approved the rail trail the last time it was on the ballot I have every confidence they will approve the design funding.  Most importantly, I support design to MassDOT standards so that we are eligible for 90% funding of the cost of the rail trail by the State.

LS: The voters have spoken and it is high time the selectman heed their voices.

As a selectman, I would do two things.  First, I would place the offer by the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail of $50,000 to pay for the 25% design study of the northernmost portion of the rail trail (Concord/Sudbury border to Rt. 117) mile on the selectman’s agenda.  I would support that offer.  This would be the first concrete step towards bringing the rail trail to Sudbury.

The 25% design study is always the first step in determining the route of a trail.  It is in that study that the issues of environmental impact and wetlands are considered.  In every town north of Sudbury, there were issues of environmental impact and wetlands.  In every case, the environmental issues were mitigated.  The same pattern has held for virtually every rail trail built in New England.  One cannot say environmental impacts and wetlands issues cannot be mitigated without doing the 25% design study.  The 25% design study is a prerequisite and answers those questions.  The state works closely with town staff and engineers to address such issues.

A large walkway project is currently under construction on Peakham Road near French Road.  The walkway runs right through wetlands.  Town staff worked with the DPW and engineers to mitigate all environmental and wetlands issues, proving it can be done right here in Sudbury and in compliance with our wetland bylaw.

There are very few parts of the rail trail in Sudbury that would require mitigation and those challenges can be met with existing engineering solutions. 

Recently, the executive committee of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, the preeminent environment watchdog, has unanimously endorsed construction of the entire Bruce Freeman Rail Trail.

Second, as selectman I would ask the CPC to recommend allocation of approximately $400,000 of CPA funds for the remainder of the 25% design study for the rest of the BFRT, from Rt. 117 southward to near Rt. 20, where the rail bed is owned by CSX (next to AAA Limousine).  Such a recommendation would be on the 2014 warrant for town meeting.  If approved, then a binding vote at the next election.

The rail bed right of way from the Concord border to CSX is about 4 miles long and 66 feet wide.  It is state owned land.  Sudbury does not own it.  It is not private land.

By combining the offer of Friends of BFRT offer, with CPA funds in 2014 and 2015, and state funds that may be available for design, there would be no impact on taxes.  For rail trail projects, including the BFRT, the town is responsible for the design phase.  This is about 10% of the total cost of the rail trail.  The remaining 90%, the actual construction cost, is paid by state and/or federal funding. 

This is how the BFRT rail trail has been designed, planned, funded, and constructed.  It has a proven track record.  The BFRT now runs from Lowell to just north of Acton.  Construction in Acton is scheduled to begin in the spring, and plans are now proceeding in Concord for its portion of the BFRT, with a bridge crossing of Rt. 2 in West Concord.  I believe it is time for Sudbury to move expeditiously to bring the rail trail here.  Twelve years of discussion, studies, debate, consultation, meetings, and reports, are enough.  The voters have spoken we should move forward expeditiously. 

If any additional issues arise regarding the rail trail, I will study them carefully and reach an evidence-based decision, just as I have done in the steps noted above.

I am pleased to note that I joined the Board of the Friends of the BFRT last November.

DD: I am a 19 year member of the Rails to Trails Conservancy.  I support Rail Trails.  That being said, it is the job of the Selectmen to carry out the will of the majority of voters and always allow the minority to be heard.  In Sudbury Town Meeting 2010 the Town voted unanimously to develop it’s own concept plan prior to proceeding any further with trail design. On a March 2012 non-binding resolution the Town voted unanimously to “move forward with designing the 0.5 mile segment of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (BFRT) in north Sudbury”.  The Town also voted unanimously in support of “Should the Town of Sudbury create a recreational Rail Trail more or less on the old rail right of way in Sudbury known as the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail”.   The questions that are now being asked by the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail complicate the issue by adding the additional condition of “design to MassDOT standards”.  I appreciate everyone’s frustration with the delay of the Concept Plan and I note that the Town staff has been ready to report the Town Concept Plan to the Selectmen for months.  I will, without delay, vote to formally present the Town Staff concept plan.  If there are no conflicts between the Concept Plan and the current question, I will vote to accept the Friends offer for the first ½ mile design.  If there are conflicts with the current question and the Concept Plan, I will vote for the Selectmen and the Friends to meet and determine how best to move forward.  If, after the concept plan is presented, there are no conflicts and funding is available and prioritized and recommended by the CPC for the remainder of trail design, I will support the will of the people at Town Meeting.  If there are conflicts, I will vote to support negotiations to resolve the conflicts and move the Trail forward.

TG: I would submit that the people of Sudbury voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bike path more or less on the railbed running north-south through Sudbury. A Bruce Freeman Rail Trail or a DOT-standard rail trail may be the sticking point. I do not want to spend the next 28 years arguing about a rail trail. If people are not willing to compromise on a design, then that is exactly what will happen for the next 28 years.  Why have rail trails been built much more easily in other towns? The reality is that the railbed in Sudbury is *different.*  Sudbury's rail-bed happens to run through some major farm properties.  The remaining farms in Sudbury are treasures to be protected.  We need a bike path design which uses as much of the railbed as possible without driving out local business owners and fostering more housing development. We need to consider the unintended consequences of building a DOT-Standard Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. The consequence of that option is that it just won't happen and will be debated for many more years. Since I, and many town residents, want a bike path in Sudbury, I am willing to compromise and help the parties involved understand that a compromise is the best and fastest path forward.